Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24, while Motorola alleges that Apple has infringed on 18 of its patents.

Motorola first sued Apple in October in what many believe was a preemptive move after Apple sued HTC for violation of smartphone patents that the company holds. Motorola and HTC are two of the most prominent makers of Android-based smartphones.

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of his company's case against HTC. "We've decided to do something about it."

In its suit against Apple, Motorola accused the iPhone maker of refusing to pay a license after "lengthy negotiations." Motorola also claims Apple infringed upon patents relating to technologies that include 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design.

After Motorola sued Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., company quickly responded with a countersuit. Last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it was launching a formal investigation of Motorola in response to Apple's allegations.

Apple's motion this week to add an additional 12 patents to its lawsuit against Motorola counters a preemptive request filed by Motorola in October for a declaratory judgment that would block Apple from using those patents against Motorola in court. The declaratory judgment references 11 patents that Apple used in its suit against HTC, but had yet to use against Motorola.

The iPhone maker has requested that Motorola's declaratory judgment case, which was filed in Delaware, be dismissed or moved to Wisconsin, where Apple's suit against Motorola was filed, Electronista reports. Apple argues that since Motorola is already suing Microsoft in Wisconsin, moving the declaratory judgment case there shouldn't be a problem.

Apple's legal wrangling has made it the "world's most-sued tech company" since 2008 and forced it to expand its legal department. According to a Bloomberg earlier this week, Apple has brought on "some of the nation's top patent lawyers as outside counsel."

In 2009, 27 patent infringement lawsuits were filed against Apple. According to Apple, responding to those claims, whether valid or not, consumes "significant time and expense."

While Apple have a record of innovation in other areas, if readers check GSMArena and other veteran phone blogs, they will discover how innovative Motorola have been in phone design, not just in wireless, something they are historically renowned for.

Apple's greatest mistake, (and this is why ALL of their wireless equipped products, including Powerbooks, (some) Macbooks, all iPhone models and the WiFi iPad have a history of flaky wireless performance) was not to purchase a wireless hardware vendor a while back, if not Motorola themselves, who would have not only provided Apple decades of wireless expertise, but captured a future Android OEM.

On this one, as an avid Apple user (typing this on an iPad), I must side with Motorola.

QUOTE=AppleInsider;1763131]Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24, while Motorola alleges that Apple has infringed on 18 of its patents.

Motorola first sued Apple in October in what many believe was a preemptive move after Apple sued HTC for violation of smartphone patents that the company holds. Motorola and HTC are two of the most prominent makers of Android-based smartphones.

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of his company's case against HTC. "We've decided to do something about it."

In its suit against Apple, Motorola accused the iPhone maker of refusing to pay a license after "lengthy negotiations." Motorola also claims Apple infringed upon patents relating to technologies that include 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design.

After Motorola sued Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., company quickly responded with a countersuit. Last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it was launching a formal investigation of Motorola in response to Apple's allegations.

Apple's motion this week to add an additional 12 patents to its lawsuit against Motorola counters a preemptive request filed by Motorola in October for a declaratory judgment that would block Apple from using those patents against Motorola in court. The declaratory judgment references 11 patents that Apple used in its suit against HTC, but had yet to use against Motorola.

The iPhone maker has requested that Motorola's declaratory judgment case, which was filed in Delaware, be dismissed or moved to Wisconsin, where Apple's suit against Motorola was filed, Electronista reports. Apple argues that since Motorola is already suing Microsoft in Wisconsin, moving the declaratory judgment case there shouldn't be a problem.

Apple's legal wrangling has made it the "world's most-sued tech company" since 2008 and forced it to expand its legal department. According to a Bloomberg earlier this week, Apple has brought on "some of the nation's top patent lawyers as outside counsel."

In 2009, 27 patent infringement lawsuits were filed against Apple. According to Apple, responding to those claims, whether valid or not, consumes "significant time and expense."

Kinda' sounds like more tit for tat as in, nyahh, nyahh, now we're suing you for more patent violations than you're suing us for.

I know some of these cases may be important, and that IP and basic hardware patents are huge - but we've learned most of these cases that aren't dismissed early end up in trading reciprocal rights, or if from one side, to the other agreeing to license fees.

America is the most litigious society in the world. That's 'cos we got more damn lawyers per square inch than makes any sense. Shakespeare knew. Anyway, check back in with a report when something's decided already.....

Feels like old times again, except this time it's not Apple vs Microsoft. It's Apple vs HTC, Motorola, + yet to be named defendants or claimants in the battle over mobile patents.

Sadly, the court system, patent system, and all the agencies created to enforce the rules are simply no better equipped to deal with these disputes today than they were more than 2 decades ago. This almost guarantees that the coming legal storm will be long and drawn out, concluding long after the mobile wars are over and one platform has already come out dominant regardless of whether or not they legally deserved to.

As regretful as it is, it's not surprising. While mobile tech has been around for quite awhile now, we're now at a point where it's a land grab, as if the mobile landscape was the wild west. Naturally, every company that has even a hope of remaining relevant had best assert the patent claims now to ensure their place in licensing technology and the royalties that come with it.

Motorola is highly likely to be making 7" and 10" tablets soon showing just how desperate Motorola has become, grasping at anything to stay relevant.

Apple has been innovating and making wireless (WiFi) devices for years involving transmission of data using radio waves.

They have a decades long history in the field of computer hardware and PDA's (Newton).

It's like the 1984 ad all over again with Apple breaking free of the Cellphone "Big Brother" consortium of companies who sought to maintain their control by keeping out new players.

Motorola's innovation died with the Razr, Nokia's innovation died with the N95 when both companies became complacent and misread the massive change instigated by Apple.

Such a showdown became almost inevitable as the worlds of cellphones and computers converged.

What is surprising is that Apple is using their own data dormancy state with the 4.2 iOS update as was recently discovered by Nokia-Seimens networks, so how much more did Apple create independently of the cellphone status quo?

Something which is up to the courts to decide.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

While Apple have a record of innovation in other areas, if readers check GSMArena and other veteran phone blogs, they will discover how innovative Motorola have been in phone design, not just in wireless, something they are historically renowned for.

The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.

There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.

If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

While Apple have a record of innovation in other areas, if readers check GSMArena and other veteran phone blogs, they will discover how innovative Motorola have been in phone design, not just in wireless, something they are historically renowned for.

Apple's greatest mistake, (and this is why ALL of their wireless equipped products, including Powerbooks, (some) Macbooks, all iPhone models and the WiFi iPad have a history of flaky wireless performance) was not to purchase a wireless hardware vendor a while back, if not Motorola themselves, who would have not only provided Apple decades of wireless expertise, but captured a future Android OEM.

On this one, as an avid Apple user (typing this on an iPad), I must side with Motorola.

QUOTE=AppleInsider;1763131]Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24, while Motorola alleges that Apple has infringed on 18 of its patents.

Motorola first sued Apple in October in what many believe was a preemptive move after Apple sued HTC for violation of smartphone patents that the company holds. Motorola and HTC are two of the most prominent makers of Android-based smartphones.

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of his company's case against HTC. "We've decided to do something about it."

In its suit against Apple, Motorola accused the iPhone maker of refusing to pay a license after "lengthy negotiations." Motorola also claims Apple infringed upon patents relating to technologies that include 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design.

After Motorola sued Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., company quickly responded with a countersuit. Last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it was launching a formal investigation of Motorola in response to Apple's allegations.

Apple's motion this week to add an additional 12 patents to its lawsuit against Motorola counters a preemptive request filed by Motorola in October for a declaratory judgment that would block Apple from using those patents against Motorola in court. The declaratory judgment references 11 patents that Apple used in its suit against HTC, but had yet to use against Motorola.

The iPhone maker has requested that Motorola's declaratory judgment case, which was filed in Delaware, be dismissed or moved to Wisconsin, where Apple's suit against Motorola was filed, Electronista reports. Apple argues that since Motorola is already suing Microsoft in Wisconsin, moving the declaratory judgment case there shouldn't be a problem.

Apple's legal wrangling has made it the "world's most-sued tech company" since 2008 and forced it to expand its legal department. According to a Bloomberg earlier this week, Apple has brought on "some of the nation's top patent lawyers as outside counsel."

In 2009, 27 patent infringement lawsuits were filed against Apple. According to Apple, responding to those claims, whether valid or not, consumes "significant time and expense."

America is the most litigious society in the world. That's 'cos we got more damn lawyers per square inch than makes any sense. Shakespeare knew. Anyway, check back in with a report when something's decided already.....

It really bothers me when people misquote Shakespeare.

He didn't suggest that lawyers should be killed because they're evil. Rather, he suggested that killing the lawyers would be the first step in overthrowing the government. That is, the attorneys were providing an essential service to society.http://www.howardnations.com/shakespeare.html

He was right. Lawyers DO provide an essential service. The fact that some of them are abusive and, more importantly, that some companies abuse the system doesn't change that fact.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

He didn't suggest that lawyers should be killed because they're evil. Rather, he suggested that killing the lawyers would be the first step in overthrowing the government. That is, the attorneys were providing an essential service to society.http://www.howardnations.com/shakespeare.html

He was right. Lawyers DO provide an essential service. The fact that some of them are abusive and, more importantly, that some companies abuse the system doesn't change that fact.

It's hard to fathom the amount of money consumed by all the law-suits.

I think I'll ferry my kids into the legal world as it really seems recession proof as not only this world of patents suits doesn't seem to be ending any time soon, and if the economy tanks as it is now, they can make a mint in Family Law.

I'm guessing these law suits are just a method of forcing a 'deal' between companies as gut feel that they both must have at least one patent that overlaps each other.

If the Coverflow patent lost Apple $625 million ... how much does 24 patents cost? Wow.

The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.

There is no indication of whether or not antenna design or anything else requires FAND licensing.

Would be nice if they would hurry up and get their stupid "ip" sorted out.

Without being an expert in the area of patents, you'd be a little silly siding with anybody. The issues are very complex for anybody not directly involved in the matter. Maybe you are such an expert.

Sure, Motorola has a history of being innovative with various wireless technologies, but not with Graphical User Interfaces used in computing. Motorola is seeking not only to find Apple in violation of it's wireless patents, but also invalidate Apple's GUI related patents.

Now I am not claiming to be an expert, but I do have a law degree; have studied Intellectual Property (I do not practice it); and I have read the various legal documents.

The difference between Motorola's patents and Apple's are that Motorola's patents are part of a standards body whereby members provide for use various patents to other members of the body and Apple's patents are not part of any such standards body.

With a standards body, the goal is to have all the members agree to a particular standard so that everybody doesn't have to spend tremendous resources developing different standards. When a patent is provided to a standards body, the patent is typically granted to be used by all members under fair, reasonable, and undiscriminatory terms. So Motorola gave up some of it's rights under it's patents so that it could get others to agree to using those patents as part of a standard. Otherwise, it would have cost Motorola a lot more to battle it out with other competing technologies.

Apple and Motorola both belong to the same standard body in which most if not all patents Motorola holds at issue belong. Apple has been using many of these patents for years with no grievance from Motorola.

Now that Apple is attacking Motorola's core business, Motorola is taking a similar approach as Nokia. Motorola wants Apple to pay more in licensing fees then it does other members. Further, it wants to discriminate against Apple by having Apple grant access to Apple's GUI patents that are not included in the standards body when other members of the standards body are not required to provide access to unrelated patents.

Once the cases develop further, I may view my change. As of now I side with Apple. Motorola wants to use Apple's patents for free so it can rely on Android without worrying about Apple suing it. Apple probably is willing to pay Motorola licensing fees for it's patents if Motorola is treating Apple the same as all other members of the standards body. For instance, Motorola can't not charge some members, but charge others. I doubt Motorola is doing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oflife

While Apple have a record of innovation in other areas, if readers check GSMArena and other veteran phone blogs, they will discover how innovative Motorola have been in phone design, not just in wireless, something they are historically renowned for.

Apple's greatest mistake, (and this is why ALL of their wireless equipped products, including Powerbooks, (some) Macbooks, all iPhone models and the WiFi iPad have a history of flaky wireless performance) was not to purchase a wireless hardware vendor a while back, if not Motorola themselves, who would have not only provided Apple decades of wireless expertise, but captured a future Android OEM.

On this one, as an avid Apple user (typing this on an iPad), I must side with Motorola.

QUOTE=AppleInsider;1763131]Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24, while Motorola alleges that Apple has infringed on 18 of its patents.

Motorola first sued Apple in October in what many believe was a preemptive move after Apple sued HTC for violation of smartphone patents that the company holds. Motorola and HTC are two of the most prominent makers of Android-based smartphones.

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said of his company's case against HTC. "We've decided to do something about it."

In its suit against Apple, Motorola accused the iPhone maker of refusing to pay a license after "lengthy negotiations." Motorola also claims Apple infringed upon patents relating to technologies that include 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design.

After Motorola sued Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., company quickly responded with a countersuit. Last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it was launching a formal investigation of Motorola in response to Apple's allegations.

Apple's motion this week to add an additional 12 patents to its lawsuit against Motorola counters a preemptive request filed by Motorola in October for a declaratory judgment that would block Apple from using those patents against Motorola in court. The declaratory judgment references 11 patents that Apple used in its suit against HTC, but had yet to use against Motorola.

The iPhone maker has requested that Motorola's declaratory judgment case, which was filed in Delaware, be dismissed or moved to Wisconsin, where Apple's suit against Motorola was filed, Electronista reports. Apple argues that since Motorola is already suing Microsoft in Wisconsin, moving the declaratory judgment case there shouldn't be a problem.

Apple's legal wrangling has made it the "world's most-sued tech company" since 2008 and forced it to expand its legal department. According to a Bloomberg earlier this week, Apple has brought on "some of the nation's top patent lawyers as outside counsel."

In 2009, 27 patent infringement lawsuits were filed against Apple. According to Apple, responding to those claims, whether valid or not, consumes "significant time and expense."

Should have read your post before I commented. Good observation, and was the point of my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.

There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.

If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.

Motorola is highly likely to be making 7" and 10" tablets soon showing just how desperate Motorola has become, grasping at anything to stay relevant.

How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

I suppose you haven't noticed the several thousand hardware patents awarded to Apple since 2005, right? They are massive and cover every area of a smartphone.

There's several awarded to all the companies taking each other to court. I think it would be a bit silly to suggest that there is one clear winner. I think we're just going to have a few years of this until everyone works out who actually owns what. Then everything will be licensed between them as the alternative would be that nobody could actually make a smartphone.

Motorola was once the number one handset maker, selling more handsets than Nokia, Apple is now selling more handsets than Motorola.

The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.

Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.

After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.

Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.

The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timgriff84

How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.

That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.

If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder

Or

2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.

Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.

If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder

Or

2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.

Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.

Good. More power to Apple. It's about time. The trade dress infringements alone must be in the hundreds by now.

I'm almost ready to say everyone should simply hand their patents over to Apple, because Apple will actually *do* something with them that's actually worth a damn. Of course, I jest, but you get the idea.

Motorola was once the number one handset maker, selling more handsets than Nokia, Apple is now selling more handsets than Motorola.

The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.

Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.

After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.

Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.

The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.

That's still nothing more than regular business though, nothing about it makes them desperate. Calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated is a regular thing to do, particularly when you read the list of them some of them are questionable as to if they are actually valid or not. Plus basically everyone in the phone business is suing everyone else (except for Microsoft, oddly nobody appear to be suing them).

And I still don't get how creating a tablet is desperate? If they made a rubbish tablet and sold it for $50 just to get in the market, that would be desperate. Creating a rival product is just common sense.

Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.

I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.

How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?

The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)

Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).

Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.

I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.

How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?

The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)

Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).

Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?

No. The legal department at Apple must just be doing this because they've got nothing better to do......

Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.

The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.

Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.

I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.

Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.

The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.

Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.

I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.

Some people are idiots. Should we listen to them, too?

Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.

There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.

There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.

There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.

There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.

These sound like well thought out arguments.

So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.

So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.

I never said there was no such thing as a patent whore. Clearly, some people abuse the system.

For example, there are people pushing through patents that they know aren't valid. Or they're suing people for patents when there is no evidence of infringement. Or they're playing forum shopping games to get to a forum which overwhelmingly favors plaintiffs against large corporations in patent cases - without regard to the actual evidence. The system is cumbersome and difficult to manage and it is clearly being abused by some people.

However, if someone legitimately obtains a patent (either by inventing something or purchasing a valid patent from someone else), they have the right to defend that patent.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.

The facts will come out during the court case.

Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.

The facts will come out during the court case.

Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.

Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.